Today, more than two-thirds of NHL teams have someone, most often a former pro player, filling the specific role of director of player development. A handful, including the Montreal Canadiens, do not. In Montreal, the director of amateur scouting, Trevor Timmins, carries both titles.

I am curious to know what Timmins does in the capacity of director of player development, given that he's so obviously busy doing a great job with our amateur scouting.

I am curious to know what Timmins does in the capacity of director of player development, given that he's so obviously busy doing a great job with our amateur scouting.

The 'article' and that quote perpetuates myth: that Montreal has a 'reputation' for poor development. How can we say Montreal has a strong draft record, but poor development record? If the team wasn't developing well, then those strong draftees wouldn't make the NHL. But they do. So the team is developing well. Making the thrust of the article, that Montreal ought to consider hiring someone exclusively for that role, obsolete.

As far as how Timmins does in that capacity: tough to know. It would seem natural that an individual charged with overseeing and investing in 17-year old prospects to then be responsible for their development. That individual would be most knowledgeable about the players' strengths, weaknesses and their needs. He organises the summer development and rookie camps, and he has been highly involved in getting players the trainers they need, including educating prospects on nutrition. There've been articles in the past mentioning how Timmins would give reports to these players on what they need to do to improve over the course of the summer, then what they need to do over the course of their seasons back in juniors/college/Europe/minors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lshap

The Habs actually have an ingenious player development system. They trade away their prospects and let other teams develop them for free.

I also can't help but think that if the real problem was development, that the players that we've traded wouldn't suceed as soon as they're traded.

Most of these guys have done just fine in junior, AHL and then... I don't know it seems like the main problem is actually putting guys in a position to suceed at the NHL level but alot of them were already good players just undervalued due to lack of quality icetime/linemates. I would tend to think that if those guys were badly devellopped overall they would have been more of a long term project for the team getting them than an instant success.

Our problem seems to be more a mix of failure to put players in position to succeed, an undervaluing of our asset's value and, a very good point someone made in another thread that doesn't get bring up very often: the inability to indentify our good players and what makes a player good. Seems like management has acted like the average fan in their player evaluation a couple of times in the last few of years so I guess that's a good thing that they all just got fired.

Though I'll say, considering the money advantage we have on some teams, it can't be a bad idea to invest more in such an important thing.

The 'article' and that quote perpetuates myth: that Montreal has a 'reputation' for poor development. How can we say Montreal has a strong draft record, but poor development record? If the team wasn't developing well, then those strong draftees wouldn't make the NHL. But they do. So the team is developing well. Making the thrust of the article, that Montreal ought to consider hiring someone exclusively for that role, obsolete.

Such as? I can only think of McDonagh in the last decade+.

I'm not convinced that the problem is player development, or the lack of a guy whose only job is to develop prospects. Perhaps our coaching, or just the organization's environment itself lends itself to smothering our prospects. But whatever it is, a lot of players who didn't do much here, or were pushed out, are doing great elsewhere. There's evidence to suggest that we develop them just fine, but fail to define suitable roles for them in which to grow and succeed once they hit the NHL. As another poster said, these players tend to succeed right away after being driven from Montreal.

The 'article' and that quote perpetuates myth: that Montreal has a 'reputation' for poor development. How can we say Montreal has a strong draft record, but poor development record? If the team wasn't developing well, then those strong draftees wouldn't make the NHL. But they do. So the team is developing well. Making the thrust of the article, that Montreal ought to consider hiring someone exclusively for that role, obsolete.

As far as how Timmins does in that capacity: tough to know. It would seem natural that an individual charged with overseeing and investing in 17-year old prospects to then be responsible for their development. That individual would be most knowledgeable about the players' strengths, weaknesses and their needs. He organises the summer development and rookie camps, and he has been highly involved in getting players the trainers they need, including educating prospects on nutrition. There've been articles in the past mentioning how Timmins would give reports to these players on what they need to do to improve over the course of the summer, then what they need to do over the course of their seasons back in juniors/college/Europe/minors.

I agree with you , the team is developing well the young players . Most of them are doing very good in the minor and in the AHL . The problem seems to be more related to the integration with the big club ; The players are asked to play role they are not used to play , on defensive or energy line . SKostitsyn , GLatendresse , SGrabovsky , D'Agostini to name few , were all playing on 3-4th line with role players , instead of playing with offensive players on the top line .

Another factor is the integration to the city . Nightlife in Montreal is very attractive for the young players ( compare to most of NHL cities ) and it's very hard to resist when you are young and rich

The 'article' and that quote perpetuates myth: that Montreal has a 'reputation' for poor development. How can we say Montreal has a strong draft record, but poor development record? If the team wasn't developing well, then those strong draftees wouldn't make the NHL. But they do. So the team is developing well. Making the thrust of the article, that Montreal ought to consider hiring someone exclusively for that role, obsolete.

As far as how Timmins does in that capacity: tough to know. It would seem natural that an individual charged with overseeing and investing in 17-year old prospects to then be responsible for their development. That individual would be most knowledgeable about the players' strengths, weaknesses and their needs. He organises the summer development and rookie camps, and he has been highly involved in getting players the trainers they need, including educating prospects on nutrition. There've been articles in the past mentioning how Timmins would give reports to these players on what they need to do to improve over the course of the summer, then what they need to do over the course of their seasons back in juniors/college/Europe/minors.

Development doesn't end once those kids reached the AHL or NHL.

When the kids get to the AHL and they're ''problems'' like for AK, SK, Grabo, Lats... then you can't say they made it thanks to proper development. It's more likely they made it thanks to their talent.

I don't really know what Timmins actually does in terms of player development. I'm sure he doesn't just stop looking at them, but that doesn't mean he's truly involved, keeping a close eye on everybody and spending time with them.
I've read that he does give them some training program and that goes with nutrition, but that doesn't mean the kids actually follow them or are fully committed to it.

And as I said, player development doesn't end once you reach the NHL. I know they have a strength and conditioning coach, but I believe there's more to fitness training when developing those guys.

Do the minors no longer include the AHL now? If so, then you're right to contradict me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kriss E

I don't really know what Timmins actually does in terms of player development. I'm sure he doesn't just stop looking at them, but that doesn't mean he's truly involved, keeping a close eye on everybody and spending time with them.
I've read that he does give them some training program and that goes with nutrition, but that doesn't mean the kids actually follow them or are fully committed to it.

So to sum up:

- Timmins does give training and nutrition regimens to young developing players in the pros
- But we're uncertain if the players actually follow said regimes
- And thus we conclude . . . .

- Timmins does give training and nutrition regimens to young developing players in the pros
- But we're uncertain if the players actually follow said regimes
- And thus we conclude . . . .

I think you're overreaching here. None of us here actually know what Timmins does insofar as his role as director of player development, and if that's all that Timmins does then I'd have to conclude that that's inadequate.

I'd have to imagine that every junior team gives their players nutrition and training regimen.

I think you're overreaching here. None of us here actually know what Timmins does insofar as his role as director of player development, and if that's all that Timmins does then I'd have to conclude that that's inadequate.

I'd have to imagine that every junior team gives their players nutrition and training regimen.

I was summing up the other poster's points. (hence saying 'to sum up' . . .)

Do the minors no longer include the AHL now? If so, then you're right to contradict me.

Yes it does, so? Did I say you hadn't mentioned the minors? If so, then you're right to contradict me.

I said it doesn't stop once they reach the AHL/NHL, and if they made it there only to be label ''attitude problem players'', then we have every right to question the supervision of those players (which falls into the development part).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike8

So to sum up:

- Timmins does give training and nutrition regimens to young developing players in the pros
- But we're uncertain if the players actually follow said regimes
- And thus we conclude . . . .

We conclude nothing from that, as we really do not know what the player development program includes.
The only thing we do know is that we have a lot of players that we trade because of not contributing the way we wished they did, only to see them do it elsewhere.
It wouldn't be much of an issue if it happened once in a while, which could be normal, but seeing how it happens almost every year, it's an eyebrow raiser.
Considering the age of the guys we move, people assume it's a problem with the development.
If it's something else, that's fine, as long as management addresses it.

I was summing up the other poster's points. (hence saying 'to sum up' . . .)

Your latter point, re: junior clubs, is not accurate.

I said "I would imagine" that it would be the case. It may not be as pervasive as I thought. However, some junior clubs do employ their own strength and conditioning coaches, and many who don't consult and contract with local strength and conditioning coaches at least for off-season training. I do know one trainer whose entire business was essentially that.

IMO the issue for the Habs isn't while the players are in junior/college but rather once the reach the pro (AHL/NHL) level. I think the role of the people mentioned in the article refers to is at an amateur level which I think is fine. Habs tend to have prospects that impress in the junior level.

IMO the issue for the Habs isn't while the players are in junior/college but rather once the reach the pro (AHL/NHL) level. I think the role of the people mentioned in the article refers to is at an amateur level which I think is fine. Habs tend to have prospects that impress in the junior level.

Precisely. Which is troubling to say the least. What happens once they reach that point? It's pretty bizarre.

Isn't player development kinda hard in hockey? Montreal has no control over what the jr team a draft pick is on does. They can talk to the guy tell him what he needs to do better I guess but other then that they have to wait till they get to the ahl. Look at baseball once a kid finishes high school he goes in the draft if he doesn't go to college then he goes to A ball where it's all the organizations coaches working with them on getter better, then they move up to doube A and triple A where the same thing happens.

I agree with you , the team is developing well the young players . Most of them are doing very good in the minor and in the AHL . The problem seems to be more related to the integration with the big club ; The players are asked to play role they are not used to play , on defensive or energy line . SKostitsyn , GLatendresse , SGrabovsky , D'Agostini to name few , were all playing on 3-4th line with role players , instead of playing with offensive players on the top line .

Another factor is the integration to the city . Nightlife in Montreal is very attractive for the young players ( compare to most of NHL cities ) and it's very hard to resist when you are young and rich

Young offensive players have to play their way up to the top lines. That isn't just a Montreal thing, that is true for every successful team in the league.

You say a guy like Grabovski should have been in the top six, but when he was traded we had Plek and Koivu ahead of him. He had done absolutely nothing to displace either of those guys. We then traded the pick we got for him for Lang who played the 3C role Grabo could have had and he succeeded immensely. When Lang was hurt he was our leading goal scorer playing as the 3C.